Study Session Held to Discuss Proposed Four-Story Hilton Hotel in Pleasant Hill

August 9, 2014 14:44 pm · 54 comments

c9

The City of Pleasant Hill held a study session to review and provide design input on a proposed Hilton Hotel at the site of the former Chevy’s Restaurant on Ellinwood Way.

No action was taken on the item since this was a study session, but 18 members of the public did show up to speak about the issue.

Those members of the public expressed concerns about various aspects of the proposal relating to the height, density, size, massing, traffic, parking, lot coverage, compatibility, and design.

c6

The hotel would be a three to four-story long-term stay hotel (up to 47 feet in height, with architectural features potentially allowed up to a height of 50 feet), with approximately 125 guest rooms.

The Architectural Review Commission indicated that the latest proposal was moving in the right direction.

The city still wants to study a few issues with the proposal.

  • Further study of the proposed one space per one room parking ratio should occur to confirm adequacy for the project (1.2:1 is the City standard). The possibility of shared parking with adjacent uses should also be considered.
  • Provide a more detailed landscape plan for review, including potentially a rolling berm at the west end of the property that minimizes the need for retaining walls. The plan should also include landscape elements (potentially such as a water feature) to integrate the site with the surrounding Ellinwood neighborhood.
  • Study the feasibility of lowering the existing grade to further reduce the apparent height of the structure.
  • Provide cross-section drawings showing existing and proposed grade and the proposed structures and improvements.
  • Study an alternative that would be all three-stories to compare to the stepped design.
  • Study any further potential design solutions to improve integration of the project with the existing neighborhood.

The proposed hotel will take up much of the Chevy’s parking lot, and also the Chevy’s building, which would be demolished.

1 Random Task August 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM

blah blah the wait and see that all demifornians do is again at the front of it again. your actions come too late as you vote in party politics and they oust everything and any concerns you have. this is your voting that put us here who is issuing the go ahead for this your council and politicians so they can take more money and further their power as they step all over you …….nice to know the beat goes on ……enjoy …….feed your brain

2 Chris August 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

One angry person puts up a bunch of ugly and annoying signs and thinks they can somehow prevent the owner of said property from building on it. Quite pathetic really.

3 Anon. August 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

I do not support this. I hope they are able to keep out Hilton.

4 SKS August 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM

NIMBY Alert!

NIMBY Alert!

NIMBY Alert!

NIMBY Alert!

NIMBY Alert!

5 Anon August 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

The hotel will be built, no doubt about it. The city wants it built.

6 funny man August 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM

this will only go thru if we get Paris and her yappy dog to appear at the ground breaking!

7 DLS Grad August 9, 2014 at 5:25 PM

It will be interesting to see if the Tea Party council member, Jack Weir, will support the private property rights of the owner of that land to build the hotel he wants to build, or will he be an interfering big government bureaucrat and throw as much red tape at them as he can.

8 Question Askerer August 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Do the people complaining about the Hilton’s building permit have a permit to put up all those ugly signs? I’m thinking not.

9 Dr. Worm August 9, 2014 at 5:48 PM

#2 just described Claycord.com. Very astute, sir.

10 I keep tellin' ya August 9, 2014 at 5:58 PM

its already a done deal. Anything more is a dog an pony show. No one cares what the people think. Don’t like it? Vote in new people.

11 Pyrrhus August 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM

@1 I’m confused, I thought it was “Demofornians” that were antidevelopment? Sounds like it’s just NIMBYISM at it’s best. However, keep blaming the Democrats for everything, what else can I expect from the party of “No.”

12 Not in my back yard August 9, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Oh the humanity. I liked the farm land where those flimsy condos are built but they built them anyway. Now a few NIMBY (Johnny-come-lately) condo owners think the building is to big for there liking. To bad. Apply for a job at the new HOTEL and cut your commute. Traffic and smog. Make lemonade. Build the Hotel!!!

13 Thatguy August 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM

That area is perfect for a Hilton, they should be thankful that it’s not an Easy 8 Motel.

14 Zoning vs Zoning and it is Buyer Beware! August 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM

Noise.. blah.. blah.. blah.
Traffic..blah.. blah.. blah.
Kids’ safety..blah.. blah.. blah.
Property values.. blah.. blah.. blah.
“Strangers”..blah.. blah.. blah.
“Massive”.. blah.. blah.. blah. Just like those nearby office buildings.

The NIMBYs would be claiming the same arguments if Chevy’s wasn’t there and a new restaurant was being proposed. These condo owners should have known their development is adjacent to commercially zoned properties and commercial uses, like a motel/hotel, are allowed and conditionally allowed. Dumb as usual.

Approve it.
Build it.
Move on.

15 The voice of the people... August 10, 2014 at 12:07 AM

The voice of the people in Pleasant Hill falls on deaf ears. Like the majority of residents not wanting any new ordinance on gun shops, including the planning commission being against it. Slam Dunk once again. It happened.

So now we have a bunch of NIMBY’s who don’t see the big picture?

We have a city council who is scrambling to always find new sources of revenue (aka TAXES).

The monster grows and wants your tax dollars.

BTW did “Dome Lady” Darcy make those signs?

16 A Pleasant Hill Dick August 10, 2014 at 2:36 AM

All of you moron trolls who are criticizing Pleasant Hill resident’s for not wanting to live next door to this “monstrosity” will not be living next door to this – right? You don’t even live in P.H.

So you can shove your anti-NIMBY crap because that’s right: Not In Our Freaking Backyards!

17 Pleasant Jenny August 10, 2014 at 10:06 AM

My only concern is the traffic off Contra Costa Blvd. to access the hotel. Too many people drive CCBlvd already who don’t know where their turn is for whatever business they are looking for. Don’t use their blinkers and/or come to dead stop once they find their turn.

18 Blink August 10, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Sounds like a lot of adults who are bullies by ther name calling …..
Feel sorry for there families…

Not all change is bad, it’s a high density area already.
Would serve as sound barrier from freeway
Area maintained better than abandoned building by freeway
Just saying…

19 commoncents August 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Put a Popeye’s in there…….

20 @ Pleasant Jenny August 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Spot on Jenny – the traffic is an issue. Yes, the area is a bit high density, but conforms to Pleasant Hill’s building laws. This project was just RAMed through by the City Council. Again, another crap project that Does not conform to P.H. law. This project was put together by self-appointed fake Mayor/real estate Attorney Timothy M. Flaherty – using tricks and several different work around’s of Pleasant Hill law. Who does He work for? The people of P.H. or Real Estate developers?

The City Council should be more concerned with Traffic/crime here. I would just add, to all Pleasant Hill citizen’s that what affects one part of Pleasant Hill can and does affect each and every part of the city. We don’t want P.H. urbanized with more fast food and strip-malls just to make a quick bucks. Smart growth, not stupid quick bucks for out of town Real Estate developers. While it would be nice to perhaps have a Hilton here, the size and scope does not fit this small neighborhood – it’s literally right across the street from peoples Homes. If they can build this here and in this way, who knows what’s up for other neighborhoods in Pleasant Hill.

21 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 9:04 AM

@ Pleasant Hill Dick. I bet I live closer to the site than you do and I can’t wait for it to go up. You are the one being selfish! this land is zoned for commerce and it is right next to one of the widest stretches of freeway in California where 242 and 680 cross and merge. Lets ignore the $450,000 in hotel taxes that will go into our police, schools parks and streets, and forget the millions of dollars that the business travelers who stay there will spend in Pleasant Hill restaurants, bars and shops, and pretend that the building wont buffer us from all that traffic noise…..ignore all that because a few selfish condo dwellers on Elinwood would rather the rest of Pleasnt Hill homeowners build them another park instead….I know the pattern. As soon as the hotel deal is dead they’ll be demanding a park to help with their property values and they’ll want the rest of us to pay for it. BUILD THE HOTEL AND BUILD IT HIGH!

22 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 9:08 AM

The residents have a legitimate complaint. The proposed rezoning and the proposed hotel are not consistent with our General Plan. If the City wants to build four-story, .90 density hotels (maximum floor area ratio for the Office zone), the City should update and revise the 2003 General Plan.

The General Plan is a local government’s Constitution. If Council members won’t defend the Constitution, the residents need to take charge.

This isn’t just an Ellinwood issue. This is a city-wide issue.

Jack Weir does support private business, as do I. In this case, however, the private business is proposing a project that doesn’t conform to our General Plan. If Council approves the project, it may be time for the residents to take up another Controlled-Growth Initiative as they did thirty years ago with Measure B.

23 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 9:08 AM

@20.

You want Pleasant Hill to focus on crime prevention????? how do you propose we pay for our Police Department???? if the people of Elinwood are willing to pay a million bucks extra a year in property taxes then perhaps we’ll consider their whining. Until then, BUILD THE HOTEL. There is no better use of a plot of land next to a 10 lane freeway than a business travel hotel! You can’t build housing there, you can’t have a park, you can’t do retail, .a hotel is perfect.

24 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Sorry, I should have said .40 is the maximum floor area ratio for the Office zone. .90 (more than doubling the maximum allowed density in our General Plan) is what Council is prepared to offer the owner/developer.

25 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 9:11 AM

@ 20…I forgot. I bet you are one of Jack Weir’s acolytes bravely attacking the Mayor from your basement. I thought you tea party types were all about the rights of property owners? No? are you saying the government should stop this property owner from doing what he wants with his own land?

26 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM

So Dorothy, as a candidate for City Council, you are saying the city government should stop this landowner from building the hotel??? You are siding with the bureaucrats over the rights of private property owners???

And a General Plan is most definitely NOT a constitution. A General Plan is a mandate from the bureaucrats in Sacramento. Every city in California must produce one and it must abide by Sacramento rules and regulations, including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, AB 32 and SB 375. The State of California has a 300 page document that summarizes what a city must put in its General Plan. If you really believe a General Plan is A. a constitution, or B. has anything to do with local control or autonomy, I fear for the future of Pleasant Hill.

27 @ Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Pleasant Hill has plenty of Dough for Police.. And what’s the sense of building high destiny projects that bring down home values and bring more crime over time? Just so we get even more taxes because we need more police to curb rising crime from such projects? Stupid and pointless projects. Look at the IN/Out parking lot by Target. That place is a disaster of epic proportions – crime magnet overrun will a homeless problem the city could care less about. It’s one thing to want Taxes, it’s also another thing not to create more problems for the folks who actually live here.

A Hilton would be good for Pleasant Hill, but not in the high density form being proposed on such a small plot of land RIGHT next to homes. To give folks an idea – it’s as if a 4 story Hotel was being built right across the street from you where there was a one story home there before. And if the residents of P.H. are gullible enough to allow just Anything to be built anywhere in P.H. so developers and can make a quick buck now and City Council members later once out of office – then folks here deserve the city they Did Not fight for.

BTW, good luck to all of you who reside in the Gregory Gardens area with all the new traffic coming your way now courtesy of the P. H. City Council..

28 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 10:26 AM

@#20
I’m not so sure that Mr. Flaherty is the driving force behind this project. However, I think one or more Council members knew about the project and supported staff going ahead with it several weeks (if not months) before the public was made aware of it.

Several years ago, a local real estate attorney (who was formerly a city planner) told us that behind every controversial project, there’s a council member and staff is just following orders. That could be true in this case.

I also think that our former Redevelopment Agency Director (Bob Stewart) has been busy working on this deal for months (long before the City let the public know what was going on). I attended one Budget Committee meeting where Mr. Stewart’s full-time employment was discussed. The City Manager indicated Mr. Stewart was working full time and had enough to keep him busy. However, she carefully avoided saying what he was working on. I attended several Economic Development Committee meetings and nobody mentioned the hotel market feasibility study the City had commissioned, or any discussions with Bill Herrick (the Hilton Homewood Suites Applicant).

The secrecy and back-room deals at City Hall has got to stop. The public has the right to know what is going on. We have a Constitutional right (state Constitution) to view the deliberative process and the deliberative process includes the acquisition of information. In this case, I think at least a few council members acquired significant information about the Hilton Homewood Suites project weeks (or months) before the public knew anything about it.

Staff and our elected and appointed public officials need to remember that residents are at the top of the organizational chart (not special interests). We need to put residents back on top – right where we belong.

29 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM

@Gregory the Gardener #26
The comparison of the General Plan to the local agency’s Constitution isn’t something I made up. It was described as such in a landmark land use court case. And, the renowned real estate expert (Mr. Curtin) who wrote the book on real estate law referred to the General Plan as the local agency’s Constitution. I think the courts and Mr. Curtin know (or knew) far more than you or I do on this topic.

I am all for individual property rights subject to conformity with the General Plan and zoning ordinance. If you don’t like the General Plan, you should amend it. In this case, the City is trying to amend the General Plan (or get around the state statutes regarding variances) without going through the process.

If there are no rules, we have lawlessness. Is that what you advocate?

30 R August 11, 2014 at 10:50 AM

I wonder if the Concord Hilton would go downhill if this gets built. Seems like they are very close to each other.

31 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 11:02 AM

I actually knew Dan Curtin and he was one of the authors of that 300 page document I referred to in my previous post.

Constitutions as we generally understand them cannot be amended by fiat or by legislative action alone. General Plans can and are every day. General Plans are designed, with purpose, to allow local governments to change them when necessary and not be handcuffed by outdated planning objectives. Los Angeles has not produced a new General Plan in 35 years! they amend theirs every day and there would be chaos if they had to go to the voters every time to do so.

What process is the City trying to avoid? This has been reviewed in public, before Planning and the Council. The project sponsor and the City are abiding by all the rules. If any are being violated you should sue them….but you know that none are, so instead you choose to use the issue to score some cheap political points with the Elinwood NIMBYs.

If elected how do you propose working with staff at City Hall, given your habit of slandering them on the internet?

32 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM

@Gregory the Gardener #31
The Government Code limits General Plan revisions to four times a year. However, Los Angeles could be “special” where the Government Code is concerned (I know it is where the Education Code is concerned). It would be interesting to do a bit more research to see if Los Angeles has its own set of rules pertaining to its General Plan and any amendments.

General Plan amendments don’t have to go before the voters. They have to be brought forward as hearing items before our legislative bodies (Planning Commission, City Council, etc.) in full view of the public.

The process City Council is trying to avoid is an amendment to our General Plan, and the required California Environmental Quality Act review (Initial Study and/or a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report).

I know the City is trying to rewrite history (and our General Plan and zoning ordinance in the process). They want us to believe that Planned Unit Developments can create their own standards without regard to our General Plan and zoning ordinance.

I have already briefly discussed the issues with two real estate attorneys who are familiar with our City and our General Plan. They couldn’t believe the City was trying to push the hotel project forward without revising/updating our General Plan.

I have no intention of suing my City. But, I believe the Homeowners’ Association members may decide to litigate if necessary.

I am not trying to “score some cheap political points with the Ellinwood NIMBYs.” If you knew anything about me and my record, you would know that I have been at this for the past six years and have always worked hard on behalf of all residents. I don’t pick battles for political gain. In fact, I had no intention of running for Council when I first started attending the Architectural Review Commission study sessions last spring.

I also don’t slander staff on the internet. If you can give any examples where I have done so, I hope you will let everyone know.

When I’m elected, I want to meet with staff and members of our various legislative bodies to find out why we keep making the same mistakes and don’t appear to be learning from them.

The City would have saved $65,000 and hundreds if not thousands of staff hours if they had listened to me on St. Theresa’s Retreat. From the start, I said I didn’t think the project could meet the fire code. Staff replied that they don’t look at the fire code or building code until after Council approves the use permit. So, sure enough, after investing tens of thousands of dollars and countless staff hours, the City discovered the project couldn’t meet the fire code.

The City also approved a density (or intensity as they say in Airport Land Use terms) for the Chilpancingo In-N-Out Burger restaurant that exceeded the intensity approved by the County (and stated as a condition to the use permit). It took a lot of research and back and forth with the staff on my part, but they finally tweaked the project so I think we may be okay. Imagine the liability to the City in the event of an uncontrolled plane crash into a building that exceeded the maximum allowed intensity in the Airport Safety zone.

I want staff and our elected and appointed public officials to recognize exceptions when they’re dealing with them so we don’t keep making costly mistakes. And, I want them to embrace their mistakes and learn from them. We can do that in a collaborative environment where all stakeholders are valued and respected and where everyone wants to solve problems instead of sweeping them under the rug.

It will take time to change the culture at City Hall. And, I will continue to work for all Pleasant Hill residents and residents in our “sphere of influence” – whether on or off council.

33 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM

You didn’t slander any staff? You quite blatantly accused at least one City Employee of colluding with the project sponsor. You called it a secret “back room deal”. Is that how you plan to create a “collaborative environment”?

You are quite clearly another professional NIMBY, cloaking yourself in a good government disguise. California is drowning in bureaucracy like CEQA…a multi billion dollar boondoggle created by trial lawyers that does nothing to protect the environment…and you are part of that machine.

If you value property rights, if you value individual rights, look at what Ms. Englund is proposing. She wants a 2 year multi million dollar “environmental impact report” conducted where every Tom Dick and Harry who doesn’t own that land can dictate what can be built there and why.

Don’t call yourself a proponent of property rights when you are in fact the exact opposite. You are calling for increased government and bureaucratic interference. You are saying that people who don’t own that land should be able to tell the person who does own it what he can build there.

34 Marissa August 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM

I think it’s straight forward and clear about the plans to build a Hilton.

35 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM

@Gregory the Gardener-
You may want to stick to gardening…..or continue to slander me (perhaps others) on issues you don’t understand.

36 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM

2013 Best & Worst States for Business State Rankings

2013 Rank

State

1 Texas
2 Florida
3 North Carolina
4 Tennessee
5 Indiana
6 Arizona
7 Virginia
8 South Carolina
9 Nevada
10 Georgia
11 Louisiana
12 Utah
13 Colorado
14 Oklahoma
15 North Dakota
16 Alabama
17 Wisconsin
18 South Dakota
19 Kansas
20 Wyoming
21 Idaho
22 Ohio
23 Iowa
24 Montana
25 Nebraska
26 New Hampshire
27 Delaware
28 Arkansas
29 Kentucky
30 Minnesota
31 Missouri
32 New Mexico
33 Alaska
34 West Virginia
35 Maine
36 Washington
37 Rhode Island
38 Mississippi
39 Vermont
40 Oregon
41 Maryland
42 Pennsylvania
43 Hawaii
44 Michigan
45 Connecticut
46 New Jersey
47 Massachusetts
48 Illinois
49 New York
50 California

Does anyone want to hazard a guess why California is last and getting worse every year? We keep electing people like Dorothy Englund who run on platforms of stopping everything they see that remotely looks like it might create a job or generate a buck. In the People’s Republic of California your business is everyone’s business. We don’t care that you own the land, that you have the correct zoning, that you are going through the right process. To hell with that! if there are a few votes to be gained, we’ll shut you down! If 18 people show up to a hearing to protest, we’ll shut you down! It doesn’t matter that they don’t own the land, it only matters that they are angry and likely to vote. That’s all that matters.

37 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 3:22 PM

@Gregory the Gardener-
Once again, you are jumping to conclusions and you don’t have any facts to back them up.

If you have the courage to identify yourself, maybe we can carry on a meaningful discussion about the issues.

38 Gregory the Gardener August 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I’m sorry Dorothy, I highlighted where you purposely impugned the character of a City employee. You accused him of acting in an underhand secretive manner of being in the de facto employ of the project sponsor. You have yet to deny or defend those comments. Instead you decided to set up a strawman and accuse me of slander. I’ve been around long enough to ignore such 8th grade debating tactics.

I am posting FACTS. The title of this damn conversation is “Study Session Held to Discuss Proposed Four-Story Hilton Hotel in Pleasant Hill” yet you maintain that this is being done in secret and behind closed doors. How much of a secret can it be when the project sponsor has to erect story poles festooned with flags to outline the proposed hotel scale. How backroom can it be if there have been multiple public hearings?

You have repeatedly claimed that you support property rights and are a supporter of business, but your actions speak louder than your hollow words. We all know that you love to stop things, if you are so pro business can you point to something you helped bring here? a single cause you have championed that has created a job in Pleasant Hill? Hmmmm?

You are stoking NIMBY populist flames to help with your election, I understand the temptation, most people who run for office sacrifice their principles along the way.

And if your stock response to voters who challenge your flawed positions with FACTS is to say “you just don’t understand this the way I do” you’re in the wrong business, get the hell out of politics quick.

39 Bob the Builder Calling Dorothy on Her BS August 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Dorothy Englund is at it again! She says she’s not slandering anyone, but on other posts on Claycord she wrongly names people on the council who supposedly bullied others into what she considers wrong decisions. She even admitted that she relies on other people’s assessments of situations.

To wit: In her #28 post on this thread she wrote:
“Several years ago, a local real estate attorney (who was formerly a city planner) told us that behind every controversial project, there’s a council member and staff is just following orders. That could be true in this case.”

She does that a lot. That’s not a fact Dorothy, and who is “us”?

She seems to rely on other’s hearsay or her powers of observation. In her complaint to the city about Jack Weir not becoming Mayor last December, she cites as “evidence” that some council members had no reaction to the vote and that Flaherty’s expression and body language showed he knew what was going to transpire.

This was seriously under her “Evidence” section.

AND she’s a bully. Why would anyone tell her who they are? If Greg the Gardener is wrong with his facts, she should say so. She maligns people based on incorrect information and then expects them to give her their real name? Pshaw!

40 @Gregory #38 August 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM

You hit the nail on the head. I have seen Dorothy fight against things, but never for anything. Maybe she is better off being a watchdog for the city then being on the council. She seems to hate with a passion some current councilmembers. It will be worse than a WWE showdown. We sure don’t need that on the council.

41 Dorothy Englund August 11, 2014 at 4:48 PM

It’s impossible to debate logically with illogical individuals.

42 @ Dororthy August 11, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Not to pile on but you were so adamant about a Brown Act violation when Weir got passed over for the Mayors position. You assured everyone that heads were going to roll… How’s that complaint working out for you?

By the by it’s not when you get elected, it’s if you get elected and it’s a very big IF. People have your number – you are a curmudgeon.

43 Embarrassed August 11, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Dorothy Englund’s behavior here on Claycord is kind of embarrassing for a city council candidate. I certainly wouldn’t vote for her. She gives me the impression that she would only antagonize other councilmembers and staff. Also, I have seen her demand several times that commenters reveal their real names. That isn’t the way it works here on Claycord. Dorothy does come off as a bully. Being knowledgeable is not the end-all and be-all and will not earn you votes if you can’t get along with people.

44 Wendy Lack August 11, 2014 at 7:09 PM

@Dorothy:

Most people believe what they want to believe, which is why, too often, informed opinions are as pearls before swine. For many, facts make no difference.

In the blogosphere, as elsewhere, incessant name-calling serves no useful purpose and is a sign that no rational, thoughtful argumentation is possible. This thread brings to mind what Martin Luther King said: “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Ultimately all residents of Pleasant Hill will pay the price if this project’s gross violations of the City’s General Plan (without any amendment!) are allowed to stand. It is understandable and proper that PH residents challenge these abuses of to hold government officials accountable for their actions.

45 Sooth Sayer August 11, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I guess Dorothy can fish it out but isn’t so keen on taking it. As soon as she is challenged to defend or substantiate her allegations, she disappears. Not council material in my opinion. This little conversation has taught me a lot about her.

46 To Wendy Lack #43 August 11, 2014 at 7:51 PM

Yes! You are right. For many, especially Dorothy, facts make no difference. If you would have read the points made above in this thread you would see her own posts show that she relies on what other people tell her. Those are not facts. You are defending her but offer no facts yourself.

You say that the citizens of PH will pay the price if this project goes through. What is the price we will all pay? It seems to me that the citizens will benefit in the way of more tax revenue generated for police, library and other services. I say bring it on!

It’s funny that you cite a quote by MLK to defend Dorothy. I am familiar with the quote and thought it describes her perfectly. She thinks she’s an authority and she believes that she’s right all the time. She is sincerely ignorant of perceptions beyond what her small narrowly focused group believes. Those who just parrot what she says without question are practicing conscientious stupidity. It seems like a perfect fit.

47 @ Wendy Lack August 11, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Either way it won’t affect you since you do not live in Pleasant Hill nor do you get to vote for council members.

48 @gregory the garbager August 12, 2014 at 12:11 AM

Gregory the Gardener, Why don’t you try instead to be Gregory the Council person? Umm maybe because you’d never step out from behind the anonymity that Claycord affords you. It doesn’t take much to figure out you’re one of those cowardly posters that doesn’t have a life. I prefer a small town feel to MY city, Pleasant Hill. Thanks for bringing the name Dorothy Englund to my attention. She has my vote!!!

49 #48 August 12, 2014 at 6:41 AM

Good! She’ll need your vote.

BTW, just because people post anonymously on Claycord doesn’t mean they are not interested or active in civic affairs. Maybe we just know the type of person Dorothy is and don’t want her to take pot shots at us and our families. She’s running for city council so when she puts her shady facts out there she is opening herself up to criticism.

It’s very amusing that you are calling out someone for being a cowardly poster. If you feel that way, why not use your real name?

50 ChampagneKitty August 12, 2014 at 6:54 AM

I’m sorry, but the “@gregory the garbager” #48 has just got to be Dorothy Englund. It’s too similar to her other comments and there’s that reference to identification again…”you’d never step out from behind the anonymity that Claycord affords you.”

Dorothy, please, for the love of Pete, stop…give it up…just stop.

51 Calling BS on #48 August 12, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Hahaha! You never heard of Dorothy Englund yet you post deep on a thread that’s not even on Claycord’s home page any longer. Such BS! If you live in PH and you have been on Claycord, you certainly have heard of Dorothy,

You are obviously a shill who happens to be a friend of hers,

52 Gregory the Gardener August 12, 2014 at 8:31 AM

The crickets are chirping Dorothy!

I asked you yesterday to deny or defend (or delete if you so choose) the slanderous remarks you made about Bob Stewart. You accused him of secretly colluding with the sponsor of the Hilton hotel project, and it could be fairly argued that you accused him of taking money or being in the de facto employ of that individual. A criminal offense. You did so because some unnamed 3rd party “told you it might be true”. With this flimsy rumor, you decided to slander this man on a public forum. Hopefully for your sake Mr. Stewart isn’t looking for a lawyer right now, I know I would be.

You also accused Mayor Flaherty and other members of the Council of a willful violation of the Brown Act, which by the way is a crime. Your evidence for such a serious accusation? you could tell by looking at their faces!!!!! really???

You clearly have a troubling history of making reckless unsubstantiated accusations against people and you wonder why people don’t post their real names when challenging you on this forum.

I am also waiting for you, Ms. pro business, to post a single cause you have actively supported at City Hall that has generated a single job in our town. Just one job….and you can’t include all the extra very expensive attorneys the City has had to pay for as a result of your constant meddling. The last thing we need on our City Council is a professional gadfly and that’s what you are.

Crickets Chirping.

53 When the Going Gets Tough, Dorothy Gets Gone August 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM

She never seems to respond when her back is to the wall and the truth is required of her. The next time I see her slander or libel someone I am going to forward them the post.

54 @ Carnac the Magnificent August 12, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Dorothy and Wendy are their own worst enemy.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: